New Poll: Gosnell Trial Shifted Public Opinion Toward Pro-Life

The good news is that those who saw media reports of the Gosnell trial lean more pro-life than before, the bad news is that thanks to media bias not many people saw a media report.

According to an Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll only 24% of total adults saw news coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell but 42% of those who saw news stories regarding the trial of the Abortionist say they now lean more toward pro-life views than pro-choice views.

"The media's downplaying of this story was clearly reflected in the poll results," according to Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the survey.

Those who did see or read media reports of the trial were far likelier to be affected in the pro-life direction. Only 14% said that because of the trial, they now lean more toward pro-choice views.

Those whose view was not changed one way or the other by the Gosnell trial totaled a sizable 41% — almost as many as those affected in the pro-life direction.

Interestingly the poll showed very little difference between Men (43%) and Women (40%) shifting toward pro life.

A majority of those with some college — 57% — lean more toward pro-life because of the trial, while 33% of those holding a degree swerved in that direction.

Perhaps some of the future investigations will will receive more coverage, for example Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen 

Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live fetuses during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cord, stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or 'twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands'.

Other times the fetus was so big he would have to pull it out of the womb in pieces, Karpen's ex-assistant, Deborah Edge, said in an Operation Rescue video, which has prompted a criminal investigation into the doctor.

'Sometimes he couldn't get the fetus out... he would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize,' Edge explained.

Karpen and others like him are being investigated. Sadly there are many more Like Karpen and  Gosnell to help sway public opinion.

Ways and Means IRS Hearing: Miller Tap-Dances Around Truth - IG Says More Scandal Reports Coming

Both Democrats and Republicans showed frustration in their questioning during today's House Ways and Means Committee hearings.  Acting commissioner Miller (who is still employed by the IRS)tapped danced around the scandal, while Inspector General Russell George furnished all he could about the report.

The first real surprise was when Russel George indicated there were similar investigations being made so there may be much more coming. 

The most fun surprise was the revelation that last week's question to Lois Lerner which made the scandal public was staged.

Rep Nunes “Was her question to Ms. Lerner about targeting certain groups planned in advance?”

Miller replied, “I believe we talked about that, yes.”

As for the "real" investigation-- Miller kept claiming there was no Politics involved in the targeting of conservative groups:

"I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection," Miller said, calling the practices described in the inspector general's report as "intolerable" and a "mistake," but "not an act of partisanship."

He apologized for what he later called "horrible customer service," but he also stubbornly rejected any accusation that it amounted to politicizing the work of the IRS.

Miller objected to the term "targeted", he said the phase targeting conservatives was pejorative--Congressmen of both parties objected.  They asked how could there not be targeting when it was only conservative groups who were abused.

“When you talk about targeting, it’s a pejorative term,” Miller said. “There was a lot of discussion within the system about these” [new 501c4 organizations].

Miller said former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman's testimony failing to disclose the activity when asked specific question by the same committee --was "incorrect," but not misleading.  HUH?

Miller also claimed -- over and over -- that he was being honest with Congress during a hearing last year--with those claims he was walking on a very fine line:

"You did not share the information you knew," Rep. Reichert charged.

"I answered all questions truthfully," Miller replied.

This claim was met with deep skepticism Friday. Miller acknowledged he learned of the practice during a May 3, 2012, briefing. Yet when he was asked about it at a July 25 hearing that year, he said only that some applications fell into a particular category -- and that those organizations were grouped for "consistency" and "quality."

When he was asked if his answer was incomplete--Miller would only say his answers were "Truthful."

Miller claimed he did not know who was responsible for the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents.

“Who is responsible for targeting the conservative organizations?” Rep Brady Asked pressing for names. “I don’t have names for you?, Mr. Brady,”Miller said.

Sounds like he could take over Eric Holder's Job, as Holder also knows nothing.

”I don’t have that name, sir,” he told GOP congressman Dave Reichert in today’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the scandal, which came to light last Friday.
Reichert persisted, “Did you ask anybody?”
“Yes,” Miller responded — he asked the senior technical adviser, Nancy Marks.
“And what did Nancy tell you, who’s responsible?” Reichert asked.
“That I don’t remember, to be honest with you,” Miller said. 

Not remembering is just as believable as his claim that there was no political reason for the targeting. 

Who knew when? George said he alerted Miller’s predecessor, Shulman, in May 2012. He alerted the Treasury counsel on June 4, 2012, and subsequently told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin. The IG told new Treasury Secretary Jack Lew after his appointment that he was working on investigating the claims.

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., was the star of the show as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.

"You can put anybody out of business that you want. ... When the IRS comes in there, you're not allowed to be shoddy," he said, suggesting the agency's leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.

"This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans," he said.

When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.

It was  pointed out that IG George's document was not an investigation it was an audit.  Mr George was asked if he is conducting a full investigation. George answered that he couldn't answer that question--a clear indication that there is much more to come...so buy that BIG Bag of popcorn (but don't record it on your 1040 as a deduction).

Plenty of questions remain unanswered about why IRS agents in Cincinnati started using search terms like “tea party” and “patriots” to filter groups applying for tax-exempt status, under who's direction was  it started, what the top IRS management  did when they found out about it and why the Cincinnati office resumed similar searches months after officials in Washington told them not to. Some of those questions might come out next week when Rep. Issa's House Oversight panel takes its turn with a different set of witnesses.

Obama Caught Abusing Power: Non-Recess, "Recess" NLRB Appointments Struck Down Again

Every since the President decided to make recess appointments when the Senate was still in session his actions have been challenged in federal  court.  Back in January a federal appeals court ruled this the "recess appointments" President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board were an abuse of power, that he acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess and and the board has not had quorum to operate and yesterday a second federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Obama appointments to the NLRB were invalid.

The January ruling covered appointments of of Richard Griffin (2012-present) and Sharon Block (2012-present), yesterday's ruling invalidated the earlier appointment of Craig Becker  who served from 2010-2012.

Yesterday's ruling by the Philadelphia District court agreed with the one made by the DC District court back in January, saying that recess appointments could only be made between congressional sessions, not when congress is on a break/holiday.  

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court's decision:

"Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama's so-called 'recess appointments' to the National Labor Relations Board. As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama 'recess appointments' have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution.

"As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since at least August 2011, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB (2010), the Board's biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since then are therefore invalidated. Over 1,500 NLRB decisions may be invalid as a result. This underscores the constitutional chaos this President has created by gaming the system for union bosses.

"Today's decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years."

The January ruling said recess appointments made by all recent presidents have been unconstitutional. arguing that the president's recess appointment powers don't apply to "intrasession" appointments (such as when they close for a holiday) only after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which usually means only at the end of a year.

If President's have been making these unconstitutional appointments for decades why is the court first ruling against them now? The honest truth is no one had ever asked (challenged them) before.

Obama's "recess" appointments had created a NLRB that was very biased toward labor. However based on the two court decisions many of those unfair pro-labor decisions are invalid(see below).

Open publication - Free publishing

The DOJ/Associated Press Investigation Was Political Retribution

In response to a question about the Department of Justice/Associated Press "scandal" today the President said “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” the president noted. “They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.”

But there was no one at risk!  As the Associated Press reported on Tuesday,

We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

The White House had said there was no credible threat to the American people in May of 2012. The AP story suggested otherwise, and we felt that was important information and the public deserved to know it.

The fact is the Associated Press sat on the story for five days.  Then, according to the Washington Post report, during a Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day so the Administration could announcement.

The AP held the story for national security but published it when the only reason to hold it was for the Administration to get some glory.

The Associated Press  published the story on Monday, and Tuesday John  Brennan, now the CIA director appeared on Good Morning America the following day to . He said that because of the work of U.S. intelligence, the plot did not pose an active threat to the American public.

So if the plot no longer posed a threat, and the only reason the AP was asked to delay was so the administration could make the announcement first, why did the DOJ subpena  the Associated Press records.  There is only one logical answer, political retribution---the Obama administration was punishing the Associated Press for its blowing the big announcement. 

As Benghazi Scandal Builds, Libya Falls Apart

 By Barry Rubin

A forgotten element in the Benghazi scandal is this one: If Obama had said it was a terrorist attack back in September 2012 he would have to have done something about it.

Now, not just on that one day of September 11, 2012 but for seven months thereafter (!) the U.S. government has done zero about the murder of four American officials.

Consider the Benghazi scandal from the standpoint of Benghazi--where the militia that murdered the Americans is one of the most powerful forces in the city--and Libya itself. Suppose that from the beginning on September 11, 2012, the U.S. government announced that the U.S. facility was under attack by a militia group linked to al-Qaida. It would have had to explain why it had hired members of that militia group to guard the facility, a scandal in itself. We know 100 percent that this is true but it hasn't become an issue.

Next, there might have been a rescue attempt and a fire fight between American forces and that militia group in which casualties would have occurred on both sides. Note that as far as we know the militia took no killed or wounded, meaning that in its own eyes it achieved a total victory at no cost. At any rate, the United States would then have been in a military conflict with that militia. It would have to demand that the Libyan government take action and cooperate with U.S. efforts to punish it. On one hand, that would have been a headache for the Libyan government; on the other hand, it might have brought welcome aid to suppress a troublesome militia and help in getting control of the anarchy in the country (see below).

Congress would have given full bipartisan support to punishing those found responsible--by a quick and conclusive FBI investigation, including putting forces on the ground in Benghazi.

In practice, U.S. policy is still acting as if it believed the attack was due to a video and not a terrorist attack!

Note--and this is very important--that the scandal is not restricted to what happened on September 11, 2012, and the Washington cover-up that followed.

As a result of the cover-up there has been no effort made to punish those who we know now to have murdered four Americans.

Think of that point. You cannot punish the terrorists if you haven't officially deemed them responsible for the attack, when an Egyptian-American provocateur, who is supposedly the real guilty party, is in prison already.

Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved.

As a result, the terrorists who murdered four Americans are going free; the group that carried out the attack is still enjoying popularity and even playing a role in running Benghazi. Libya itself was the biggest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood-led, U.S. handpicked Syrian opposition and a source of a massive outflow of arms to terrorists.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved. Even as the Benghazi scandal is growing in the United States, the situation in Libya is deteriorating further.

Ignoring the actual threat of revolutionary Islamist militias—and attributing problems to a video last September plus the botching of the investigation of the attack due to the cover-up also led to mishandling post-attack U.S. Libya policy.

Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains, “militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival interest groups” increasingly dominate the country’s politics.attack, when an Egyptian-American provocateur, who is supposedly the real guilty party, is in prison already.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains, “militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival interest groups” increasingly dominate the country’s politics.

--“Since last week, the ministries of foreign affairs, justice and the interior in Libya have been under siege by armed militias demanding [passage of a] law that would ban all associates of the former regime from positions in government….”

--There was a recent terrorist attack on the French embassy in Tripoli.

--“As though the situation were not fraught enough, more than 100 policemen stormed the Ministry of Interior headquarters…where they began an open-ended sit-in to press previously voiced demands for adequate protection for the police in the course of the performance of their duties, health insurance, better job and pay conditions, and the restoration of the prestige and full rights of policemen.”

--“The following day…other militia bands stormed the Ministry of Finance located in downtown Tripoli and began to assault the guards. These quickly withdrew in order to avoid a confrontation with their attackers.”

--A band of armed men attacked a Ministry of Justice police vehicle that was transporting prisoners and three escort vehicles.” One prisoner was killed and several others were severely injured during the attack.

--On May 13 a car bomb exploded near Benghazi's main hospital killing at least 13 people.

--Prime Minister Ali Zeidan warned that “if the violence and security breakdown continue, the international community may be compelled to intervene.”

--Despite Zeidan’s threats the militias are not scared.

--The Birka Police Station in downtown Benghazi was struck by a massive explosion that destroyed the building.

--In southern Libya, Chadian forces advanced 100 kilometers into Libyan territory without even encountering the Libyan armed forces. As al-Ahram remarks:

“The incursion further throws into relief Libya’s weak security at a time when neither the army nor the militias are capable of controlling the country’s far-flung borders….

“Yet, it appears that the militias nevertheless have the upper hand. They are better armed than the government forces and they are also said to possess sophisticated eavesdropping equipment which they use to spy on government officials.”

--As a result of the violence the German embassy has suspended operations. British Petroleum has evacuated non-essential personnel.

What does this mean that NATO will return to shore up the regime it put into power? The UN resolution permitting intervention in Libya is still operative. But one additional element of the Benghazi cover-up is that it allowed the U.S. government to ignore the serious state of Libyan security. Remember that the Libyan operation was another of President Obama’s supposed successes that must be made to seem triumphant during the 2012 election.

We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here
 
By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.
-------------------- Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.